I think looking hard at this charity is going to be another fools errand..It is possibly the most or one of a few most recognizable charities in the world....
And Iran Contra ultimately put crack cocaine on the street....That who thing was incredibly ridiculous involving the CIA and drug lords...insane shit
Obviously there are those who will use it for political gain, but the thing that should concern everyone is the Administration hasn't been very forthright about all of this from the very beginning and only started to come clean about some of it AFTER the election.
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
Sorry, but my perspective on Benghazi comes from my 25 years of working with our Embassies overseas.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
I don't know what to think about Benghazi. I tended to think the scandal was Obamas lie about the video in a pre-election message packaging. I don't know about Clintons culpability in security. I do know that Sheryl Atkinson documented clintons aides parsing through documents prior to the Congressional investigation. And I do know that the Blumenthal emails are smoking guns about her saying she turned over all correspond nice, proving the lie. That I think is disconcerting. But as far as the safety goes, is it really clear. I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
I think secretary of State is slightly different Â
Then your run of the mill government employee....I don't know all the details here so I would be speaking out of turn but I really doubt this is going to turn into anything....I think some here are right with the boy who cried wolf syndrome in regards to HRC....
I also think she is smarter then the scandals people try to put on her...
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
Deej, do you really feel that the money Bill makes from speeches is completely divorced from Hillary? I know my wife seems to feel that money I make is hers to have. But our relationship might be different.
But charity rating organizations can't even rate the Clinton Foundation as a charity because it's so non-transparent.
And yes, politicians accept money all of time for influence. But when it is billions of dollars coming from foreign countries, including those with business in front of the State Department, that is a conflict of interest.
Again, 99.9 percent of USG employees would have been told by their agencies' ethics attorneys that they would have to recuse themselves or get rid of the interest that was causing the conflict. It's not allowed.
Hell, as a USG employee, the most a foreign or domestic person or organization could spend on me for lunch was $20.
I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
It's not different. It's why some nominees for Cabinet positions withdrawal their names from consideration. They don't want to sell off business interests.
Enriching the Clintons while getting favorable State Dept treatment Â
"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State
Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
Eric: You post makes no sense to me. Politicians accept money for influence all the time you say... but some how only when Hilary does it it is a conflict of interest?? If anything, there is less/no conflict of interest with Hilary, since it is a charity (i.e. not her personal finances or her political campaign), and it isnt even her charity.
Also, it isnt billions in foreign government money. And you keep talking about what is required of USG employees, when (1) she isnt one (she is a political appointee), and (2) she isnt personally benefiting. Your 5:59 post makes even less sense. And your 6:08 post again confuses business and charity interests.
Bill: Yes, I think Bill Clinton would make a killing on the speaking tour regardless of whether Hilary was SoS. Other than American conservatives, the whole world thinks he's a rock star.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
Because her family was receiving the money while she was a Cabinet Secretary. She's not allowed to do that. At least, on the books, she's not allowed to do that. She has to recuse herself or not do it.
Secondly, it's not clear how charitable the charity really is. That's not some "right wing" conspiracy garbage. Those charity ratings orgs can't rate the charity.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
look at how small those numbers are for a charity that has raised money in the BILLIONS. 50k from Bahrain and Jamaica! Oh no, that bitch is arming Australia and Norway.
The only non-western democracies that are over $1 million are the Saudis (+97%), the Kuwaitis (+11%), and Morocco (+1%). So Morocco did no better, and we continued to be in bed the the House of Saud and the Kuwaitis. I wish we werent, but then again better the Saudis try to police that region than us.
Show me one shred of evidence that Clinton overruled the bureaucracy to aid these countries in arms sales. Because otherwise this article aint shit.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
...but she's not extremely beatable. Actually quite the opposite, and that's why not many are challenging her for the nomination.
Personally I'm skeptical that the Sos has no input on Â
about the Clinton Foundation? It's like the same Monday morning QBing done here AFTER the game is played. You all have the answers looking back, but nobody said boo while she was SoS. She runs for President, NOW you run around with your hair on fire claiming there was something unethical about it. Typical Minday Morning BBI bullshit
Not sure I buy that. She was supposed to be a shoe-in back 2008 too. She's not generating a lot of enthusiasm. That's why she's running so far to the left right now...she's trying to keep the Obama coalition together.
She has the money, but I think Democrats are looking for someone who inspires them more. It's hard to take her anti-big business claims seriously (Wall Street, FTA's, etc.).
And you honestly think the Clintons have not financially benefited from the Foundation's receipts?
Ah, there is the rub. You want me to assume that the Clintons are effectively stealing from the charity. Based on zero evidence. I guess because Vince Foster.
The American Institute of Philanthropy says 89% of the foundation's money goes towards charitable mission and gave the CF (the umbrella org) an "A".
I think a lot of the people criticizing the Clinton charity have no idea who the biggest donors are, have no idea what the charity does, and essentially just think Clinton = scumbag.
Yup, that's the rub. You're assuming the best and I'm assuming the worst. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
There was nothing in particular that she herself did that cost her the nomination, Obama just ran a flawless campaign - not many people would've beat him. That's why Hillary is inheriting much of Obama's old campaign staff for her run this time around.
Yup, that's the rub. You're assuming the best and I'm assuming the worst. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I assume that Marco Rubio practices bestiality, Scott Walker owns slaves, and Rand Paul eats people. Therefore they're all unfit to be president.
A different org, Charity Navigator, says they cant rate the CF. That may be a fair position because of the structure.
but 1.8 billion Euros doesn't sound like all that much money for even a "broke" country to come up with. Is there a greater point Greece is trying to make?
I agree with a lot of your defense of HRC. But, I believe toy ate wrong about the political appointee point. That doesn't refuse the individual of rules for government employees. It is still government job. You are confusing elected official with the only government employee,it seems.
Sorry, but my perspective on Benghazi comes from my 25 years of working with our Embassies overseas.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
Well there were about 7 committee hearings that looked into and saw no wrong doing sooo...
Obviously there are those who will use it for political gain, but the thing that should concern everyone is the Administration hasn't been very forthright about all of this from the very beginning and only started to come clean about some of it AFTER the election.
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
There have been no scandals. Just because the other side tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill doesn't mean there is any validity to their claims. Benghazi and IRS have all been looked into and NOTHING has come of them with an opposition party doing the looking.
1) The Palin reference was to your snide retorts to me back when McCain selected her. You were gaga over her, telling me how she was going to pull in HRC voters, which was absurd at the time & even more laughable 7 years later.
2) Have I ever voted for a Republican nationally? No. Because the Republicans I'd vote for no longer exist. If people like Eisenhower, Rockefeller, etc. were still in the GOP, I'd consider it. But those men would find themselves in the Democratic Party today. Of the GOPers running, Pataki & Kasich seem the most same. And considering neither of them will likely be the nominee next November, that streak will continue.
3) To question my patriotism because, in your words, I put my party over my country is ridiculous. First of all, that's not true at all. I support the Democratic Party because I think their policies are, far & away, the best option for America's future. If they didn't, I wouldn't support them.
4) And I'm sure as hell not going to apologize to anybody-much less you-over supporting HRC. Do I like Bernie? Yes, I love him. I'd love for him to win. But I'm a realist & he's probably not going to win the nomination. She's going to be my party's standardbearer come next November. And I'm damn well going to support her.
5) Not every Democrat-myself included-supported the Iraq War. Hillary did, yes. But Obama didn't. Kennedy didn't. Feingold didn't. There was a loud & vocal arm of the Democratic Party that wanted nothing to do with a bar that completely took the eye of the ball & had nothing to do with 9/11.
6) The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good. And I think that bears mentioning. Bill Clinton isn't the first, & he won't be the last, to use his position to make ungodly $.
7) You linked a CNN article about a Deputy Chief of Mission saying that Benghazi could have been avoided, like that's some type of smoking gun. The article is over 2 years old & nothing ever came of it. And I'm glad you know this man wouldn't lie, considering I'm sure you know him..
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
O'Malley is in the race and Jim Webb might also jump in the race. Fact is though she will be incredibly hard to beat despite what you think. She has the machinery and has the money. It would take an Obama type of personality to knock her off and those don't come around very often.
I'm also not convinced that you can't blame her for the way she campaigned the last time. She doesn't seem natural at it (that doesn't mean she wouldn't be a good President, but there is a difference in being a campaigner).
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
I agree with a lot of your defense of HRC. But, I believe toy ate wrong about the political appointee point. That doesn't refuse the individual of rules for government employees. It is still government job. You are confusing elected official with the only government employee,it seems.
Totally fair. Look, I'll even admit that I'd be happier and she'd look cleaner if her husband wasnt getting all this foreign money for the charity (though the CF is doing great work). But I cant sit here and deal with shit like Eric assuming that the Clintons are stealing from the charity because I guess they're the Clintons.
Literally no factual support. Just presumed criminality. I.e. every other major Clinton scandal.
I'm also not convinced that you can't blame her for the way she campaigned the last time. She doesn't seem natural at it (that doesn't mean she wouldn't be a good President, but there is a difference in being a campaigner).
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Shes ahead of everyone in the field so not speaking to the media is obviously not hurting her. Fact is she doesn't need to talk to the media right now. Its June 2015. There is a year and a half before the election and another 6 months before the first primary. It makes no sense to get out in front and answer questions when you don't have to.
Never liked Palin so that doesn't even sound like me. I may have said something to the effect that she'd pull the soccer moms (which she did).
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
I'd be more convinced of that if the e-mails didn't keep disappearing from each scandal.
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
Bottom line is that there has been an opposition party looking into all of this and really doing nothing else but that. They've been throwing garbage against the wall to see what will stick and nothing has. In fact the opposite has happened and they've been exonerated. If there is no other evidence that has been found then there aren't any emails that would show anything different.
I'm not a huge HRC fan-I've said that multiple times on this site Â
I prefer Bernie to her. And I'll vote for him over her in the primaries. But I'm a realist; he's got little to no chance in hell of beating her. This isn't Obama 2007.
She's going to be the nominee, barring the unforeseen. And I'm going to be in her corner. Also, I think she's gotten a ton of flack with some stories that just don't pass the smell test in terms of real scandals.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
That is absolutely not true. Most democrats did not vote for the Iraq so its impossible that most liberal politicians voted for the war. There was a strong liberal opposition to the Iraq War that was shouted down by shameless conservatives who questioned their patriotism for having doubts about the war. It was not a done deal no brainer type of vote. It was hotly debated and clearly it took lies and shenanigans from the administration to convince the public and politicians to go along with it.
The Electorial College has outlived its usefulness Â
we have 330 million and counting. To have a bunch of counties( I'm an Obama guy) determine the elections every 4 years is ridiculous. The popular vote decides, not ButtFuck Ohio and BlowJob County in Florida
to be folksy, and interact with people in a natural way that's on their level. But I don't think most liberal voters care so much about their candidate being someone they can have a beer with, so long as they don't act too elitist. I think if anything that was her biggest weakness last time she ran.
But i suspect that her campaign would have done some self scouting and make a point to at least come off less elitist this time around. Can't deny that there's a big experience advantage for candidates who have already ran for president and have already had their weaknesses exploited.
And Iran Contra ultimately put crack cocaine on the street....That who thing was incredibly ridiculous involving the CIA and drug lords...insane shit
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
I don't know what to think about Benghazi. I tended to think the scandal was Obamas lie about the video in a pre-election message packaging. I don't know about Clintons culpability in security. I do know that Sheryl Atkinson documented clintons aides parsing through documents prior to the Congressional investigation. And I do know that the Blumenthal emails are smoking guns about her saying she turned over all correspond nice, proving the lie. That I think is disconcerting. But as far as the safety goes, is it really clear. I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
I also think she is smarter then the scandals people try to put on her...
Quote:
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
Deej, do you really feel that the money Bill makes from speeches is completely divorced from Hillary? I know my wife seems to feel that money I make is hers to have. But our relationship might be different.
And yes, politicians accept money all of time for influence. But when it is billions of dollars coming from foreign countries, including those with business in front of the State Department, that is a conflict of interest.
Again, 99.9 percent of USG employees would have been told by their agencies' ethics attorneys that they would have to recuse themselves or get rid of the interest that was causing the conflict. It's not allowed.
Hell, as a USG employee, the most a foreign or domestic person or organization could spend on me for lunch was $20.
When I saw this originally reported, I said to my wife, "DCMs" don't whistleblow. This is serious."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/index.html - ( New Window )
Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department - ( New Window )
Also, it isnt billions in foreign government money. And you keep talking about what is required of USG employees, when (1) she isnt one (she is a political appointee), and (2) she isnt personally benefiting. Your 5:59 post makes even less sense. And your 6:08 post again confuses business and charity interests.
Bill: Yes, I think Bill Clinton would make a killing on the speaking tour regardless of whether Hilary was SoS. Other than American conservatives, the whole world thinks he's a rock star.
Secondly, it's not clear how charitable the charity really is. That's not some "right wing" conspiracy garbage. Those charity ratings orgs can't rate the charity.
It's really, really early, that's why.
The only non-western democracies that are over $1 million are the Saudis (+97%), the Kuwaitis (+11%), and Morocco (+1%). So Morocco did no better, and we continued to be in bed the the House of Saud and the Kuwaitis. I wish we werent, but then again better the Saudis try to police that region than us.
Show me one shred of evidence that Clinton overruled the bureaucracy to aid these countries in arms sales. Because otherwise this article aint shit.
...but she's not extremely beatable. Actually quite the opposite, and that's why not many are challenging her for the nomination.
She has the money, but I think Democrats are looking for someone who inspires them more. It's hard to take her anti-big business claims seriously (Wall Street, FTA's, etc.).
Ah, there is the rub. You want me to assume that the Clintons are effectively stealing from the charity. Based on zero evidence. I guess because Vince Foster.
The American Institute of Philanthropy says 89% of the foundation's money goes towards charitable mission and gave the CF (the umbrella org) an "A".
I think a lot of the people criticizing the Clinton charity have no idea who the biggest donors are, have no idea what the charity does, and essentially just think Clinton = scumbag.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I think you're right. I do believe that we are at a societal watershed.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I assume that Marco Rubio practices bestiality, Scott Walker owns slaves, and Rand Paul eats people. Therefore they're all unfit to be president.
A different org, Charity Navigator, says they cant rate the CF. That may be a fair position because of the structure.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
Well there were about 7 committee hearings that looked into and saw no wrong doing sooo...
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
There have been no scandals. Just because the other side tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill doesn't mean there is any validity to their claims. Benghazi and IRS have all been looked into and NOTHING has come of them with an opposition party doing the looking.
2) Have I ever voted for a Republican nationally? No. Because the Republicans I'd vote for no longer exist. If people like Eisenhower, Rockefeller, etc. were still in the GOP, I'd consider it. But those men would find themselves in the Democratic Party today. Of the GOPers running, Pataki & Kasich seem the most same. And considering neither of them will likely be the nominee next November, that streak will continue.
3) To question my patriotism because, in your words, I put my party over my country is ridiculous. First of all, that's not true at all. I support the Democratic Party because I think their policies are, far & away, the best option for America's future. If they didn't, I wouldn't support them.
4) And I'm sure as hell not going to apologize to anybody-much less you-over supporting HRC. Do I like Bernie? Yes, I love him. I'd love for him to win. But I'm a realist & he's probably not going to win the nomination. She's going to be my party's standardbearer come next November. And I'm damn well going to support her.
5) Not every Democrat-myself included-supported the Iraq War. Hillary did, yes. But Obama didn't. Kennedy didn't. Feingold didn't. There was a loud & vocal arm of the Democratic Party that wanted nothing to do with a bar that completely took the eye of the ball & had nothing to do with 9/11.
6) The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good. And I think that bears mentioning. Bill Clinton isn't the first, & he won't be the last, to use his position to make ungodly $.
7) You linked a CNN article about a Deputy Chief of Mission saying that Benghazi could have been avoided, like that's some type of smoking gun. The article is over 2 years old & nothing ever came of it. And I'm glad you know this man wouldn't lie, considering I'm sure you know him..
O'Malley is in the race and Jim Webb might also jump in the race. Fact is though she will be incredibly hard to beat despite what you think. She has the machinery and has the money. It would take an Obama type of personality to knock her off and those don't come around very often.
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Totally fair. Look, I'll even admit that I'd be happier and she'd look cleaner if her husband wasnt getting all this foreign money for the charity (though the CF is doing great work). But I cant sit here and deal with shit like Eric assuming that the Clintons are stealing from the charity because I guess they're the Clintons.
Literally no factual support. Just presumed criminality. I.e. every other major Clinton scandal.
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Shes ahead of everyone in the field so not speaking to the media is obviously not hurting her. Fact is she doesn't need to talk to the media right now. Its June 2015. There is a year and a half before the election and another 6 months before the first primary. It makes no sense to get out in front and answer questions when you don't have to.
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
Bottom line is that there has been an opposition party looking into all of this and really doing nothing else but that. They've been throwing garbage against the wall to see what will stick and nothing has. In fact the opposite has happened and they've been exonerated. If there is no other evidence that has been found then there aren't any emails that would show anything different.
She's going to be the nominee, barring the unforeseen. And I'm going to be in her corner. Also, I think she's gotten a ton of flack with some stories that just don't pass the smell test in terms of real scandals.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
That is absolutely not true. Most democrats did not vote for the Iraq so its impossible that most liberal politicians voted for the war. There was a strong liberal opposition to the Iraq War that was shouted down by shameless conservatives who questioned their patriotism for having doubts about the war. It was not a done deal no brainer type of vote. It was hotly debated and clearly it took lies and shenanigans from the administration to convince the public and politicians to go along with it.
But i suspect that her campaign would have done some self scouting and make a point to at least come off less elitist this time around. Can't deny that there's a big experience advantage for candidates who have already ran for president and have already had their weaknesses exploited.
...is how he loves to portray himself as just another "middle class guy."
Gotta love him.